Is Abortion Harmful to Women

[Pah]

My position in this debate is that abortion does cause harm to some women undergoing elective, induced abortion. Some may consider it strange that an advocate of a woman’s right to choice would eagerly present what seems to be an argument for those who hold the life of a fetus to be primary. Rather, it is important to be honest in the emotional considerations of a social issue. Let the chips fall where they may.

I will explore the harm in three categories - physical, physiological and spiritual. Harm in gestation is a term that relates to risk and I will answer the question by citing the statistics of risk, where known, and providing argument that I consider to be common sense where statistics were not found. All arguments from common sense will have exceptions but I believe that the exceptions will not deter the reasonableness of the point I present.

The abortion to be debated is one of elective choice by a pregnant woman and not of the “spontaneous” abortion which is included in maternal health - even though many risks of elective abortion are qualitatively coincident to maternal health. We will not speak of maternal health as it is beyond the debating question.

Nor will I speak to the motivation for seeking abortion or those providing abortion services.. The starting point for debate is the assessment of harm that a decision for elective abortion engenders.

The risk I cite will be one of statistical evidence and where percentages or given in the source, I will endeavor to calculate a figure based upon the number of elective abortions at the particular stage of gestation. The calculations will be based upon United States statistics which are generally more complete than many other regions of the world.

Facts of total abortions in the United States for the years 1973-2000

• 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion. [note: nearly 1/4 of all pregnancies terminate by induced abortion - pah]

• In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2000, more than 39 million legal abortions occurred.

• Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.

• Each year, an estimated 46 million abortions occur worldwide. Of these, 20 million procedures are obtained illegally.

• 52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.

• 2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.

• Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children.(1)

The number for calculation I will use is 1.31 million abortions (or 21 per 1000) from the year 2000 admittedly a downward trend from an estimated high in 1980 of 29 women per 1000.

It is important to note that harm is generally presented anecdotally and as such gives no picture of the totality of women involved. Risk is given for women based upon statistics derived from, hopefully, objective studies. I will not be including anecdotal evidence.

Physical Risks

• Hemorrhage
• Perforation of the uterus
• Infection of the uterus
• Injury to the cervix
• Entropic pregnancy for later conceptions
• Precursor to breast cancer
• Death(2)

• Cervical, ovarian and liver cancer
• Placenta previa
• Complications of labor
• Pelvic inflammatory disease (3)

There is a great deal of overlap. Dying during and post-operative to an abortion procedure is normally caused by hemorrhaging. Placenta previa is a cause of hemorrhage but its tendency is furthered by abortion. Complications of labor may be caused by damage to the cervix and infection of the uterus. My accumulation of data from some sources may not consider a primary cause but concentrate on a narrower focus as a risk factor and vice versa. In other words, the figure for death might better have gone into the hemorrhaging of the patient with a second causation specified. Various reporting criteria and the protocol of the study may cause a “double count” in my presentation

I would also like to talk about breast cancer as a result of abortion in this introduction.

Nine studies show that induced abortion may increase the risk of contracting breast cancer, by as little as 10 percent to as much as 100 percent; 4 studies of spontaneous abortions show they increase risk. Abortion before a first full-term pregnancy appears to increase risk the most (1 study shows risk increasing with the number of abortions). Eight studies, 7 of which were of induced abortions, show no increased risk. Finally, 3 studies show that abortion decreases breast cancer risk (4)

This is certainly not a good picture in which to evaluate risk. It is given, though, to show that some studies show causation and some do not, but, in my mind, it can not be conclusive.

Physiological (or emotional) Risks
Post Abortion Stress.

• Guilt
• Anger
• Flashbacks
• Sexual dysfunction
• Memory repression
• Anniversary reactions
• Suicidal ideas
• Hallucinations
• Difficulty keeping close relationships
• Increased alcohol and drug use(2)

Many of these can lead to clinical depression.

Most of these stress factors also occur with women contemplating abortion. Further factors may be the fear of an invasive medical procedure and the disapproval of those close to the woman in whatever form that is manifested.. Those that ultimately choose abortion definitely qualify for inclusion in the group of women that are harmed by abortion. Some may consider it semantics but those who only consider an abortion, and choose not to proceed, could be included. I will not speak, beyond this disclaimer, of these women to avoid the semantics.

It is also acknowledged by some studies that physiological factors may already be present in the mental health history of the patient and may be aggravated by an increased level of stress caused by abortion, a catalyst, if you will, to reach a clinical level of the distress. Even though a prior condition is present, the harm is caused by the elective abortion.

Spiritual Risk
Guilt and fear of ostracization are the primary harms in regard to religious faith. Guilt in that a tenet of the faith considers abortion to be a sin, being disobedient to the word of one’s God. Ostracization may occur in some congregations that practice a form of “shunning”.

(1)http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Induced Abortion

(2)http://www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/risks_of_abortion.html Pregnancy Help Now, Abortion Risks

(3)http://www.afterabortion.org/physica.html Elliot Institute, A list of major physical sequelae related to abortion

(4)http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1995/03/castleman.html, Mother Jones.com, Abortion’s Risk

 

[johnnys4life]

Is abortion harmful to women? Not everyone agrees with pah, or with the pro-abortion movement. It may seem very ironic for a proponent of life to choose to present anti-life arguments, but it is a great privilege to discuss so important an issue that shapes the health and populace of women throughout generations. It is the very reasoning and arguments of the pro-abort community which were essential in reshaping my opinion on abortion, and in creating the schizophrenic legal and political space in which we debate. Since these arguments come from disparate backgrounds for disparate political reasons, I will be presenting various and sometimes contradictory arguments from the different factions of the pro-abort lobby.

To begin, we will be discussing history of the medical issue of abortion and harm to women. Within the United States, abortion has been "safe and legal" since 1973. The reasoning for the court case rested upon an essential point: the health of the woman. Pro-abortion advocates claimed the legalization of abortion would prevent harm to women, because they say that women need free sex, and will always seek out abortion, even when informed of the risks of a “back alley” procedure (rather a low view of women’s intelligence to make informed decisions). I will be exploring the statistics before and after the decision, as well as the philosophical pseudo-medical view that abortion is necessary for population control.

The second point under the medical category is whether abortion is harmful to women now? Why is there no interest in protecting the health of women by publicizing research on the health risks of abortion? In the U.S., the pro-abortion lobby has time and again opposed research into the risks of abortion.

For example, there is the link with breast cancer. Pah’s source of information on the subject is nearly a decade out of date, and from the viewpoint of a reporter examining the facts rather than a licensed medical doctor.

“The American Cancer Society has stated in its fact sheet that abortion "may be associated with increased breast cancer risk." [American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures -- 1996, at 12 (1996)] “

“Women have the right to know that 28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters.

The first study was published in an English publication in 1957 and focused on Japanese women. It showed a 2.6 relative risk or 160% increased risk of breast cancer among women who'd had an induced abortion. [Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63]” - Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, founded byJoel Brind, Ph.D., www.abortionbreastcancer.com

The best way for women to avoid harm is to make informed decisions. Take a look at the pro-abortion website of your choice: Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc. The lack of information on medical studies, and the feverish denial of any possibility of a link is astonishing. The pro-abortion organizations seem to place far more value upon politics and potential paying customers, than facts which could save women’s lives.

Emotional Risks

It is generally admitted that some women experience psychological trauma from abortion, usually related to a sense of having killed a living baby. Pro-abortion groups minimize the gravity of this by a political comparison to the harm women supposedly suffered when they did not have “choice.” They follow Justice Blackmun’s logic that the health of the women is mental, emotional, social, educational, and that any way in which a baby would cause a parent stress or inconvenience is reason enough for an abortion (Roe v. Wade). All these arguments center around the ideology that the woman, for various reasons, is not strong enough or capable enough or good enough to care for a child. Thus, according to their thinking, any harm the women suffers must be weighed against emotional gains from destroying the “inconvenient” baby.
Emotional trauma is always a risk when dealing with the death of human beings, but women undergoing abortion are not at the same degree of risk of emotional harm as the abortion clinic workers:

“Clinic workers may say they support a woman's right to choose, but they will also say that they do not want to see tiny hands and tiny feet....there is a great difference between the intellectual support of a woman's right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers." -Judith Fetrow, former clinic worker from San Francisco quoted in "Meet the Abortion Providers III" from a taped conference in Chicago 4/3/93

Again and again, the pro-abortion community affirms their faith that politics are more important than human life.

Spirituality
Most pro-abortion advocates take up a relativist position to state that there is nothing immoral with killing an unborn child, and even if it is wrong no one has the right to judge the actions of anyone else. On the other hand, they argue that there is everything morally wrong with male chauvinism, social inequality, and sexual harassment, and it is essential to stand up and judge these evils. In this view, morality and harm are amorphous standards that change with the politics of the moment.

The second spiritual option given to women by the anti-life movement is hedonism. Here, women are asked to accept the idea that if it feels good at the moment, it’s an expression of their freedom that must be protected. This type of thinking can be used to excuse any type of illegal and unethical conduct.

It is important to discuss these opinions, however I will also be dealing with some of the dissenting opinions. For example, this quote from a prominent pro-choice feminist:

"It was when I was four months pregnant, sick as a dog, and in the middle of an argument, that I realized I could no longer tolerate the fetus-is-nothing paradigm of the pro-choice movement. I was being interrogated by a conservative, and the subject of abortion rights came up. "You're four months pregnant," he said. "Are you going to tell me that's not a baby you're carrying?"
The accepted pro-choice response at such a moment in the conversation is to evade: to move as swiftly as possible to a discussion of "privacy" and "difficult personal decisions" and "choice." Had I not been so nauseated and so cranky and so weighed down with the physical gravity of what was going on inside me, I might not have told what is the truth for me. "Of course it's a baby," I snapped. And went rashly on: "And if I found myself in circumstances in which I had to make the terrible decision to end this life, then that would be between myself and God." - Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls"
"The women who come to a clinic that is truly feminist -- that respects women -- are entitled not only to their abortions but also to their sense of sin." - Naomi Wolf, "Our Bodies, Our Souls" October 16, 1995 in The New Republic

This response concurrently proposes that abortion is harmful, immoral, and undesirable, yet suggests that women are forced into it by necessity. One has to ask, is it ever really necessary to end another human being’s life?

In the end, these opinions offer little more than varying degrees of justification for immorality, and cause great harm to women by devaluing life.

On the more traditional side, there are the teachings of many religions which affirm the value of women and human life. While it is true that some religious groups condemn abortion vehemently, to assess the true value of these beliefs to women, one must look at their consequences. Pro-life religious groups have been more active than any other group in providing support for women who have suffered from the physical and emotional consequences of abortion. The typical response of Christian groups to women who have had abortion is to offer healing, forgiveness and compassion:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/help/national_help_lines.asp
http://www.carm.org/abortion/abortion_christian.htm

Rather than dodging the issues of physical and emotional harm to women, feminist pro-life groups have offered spiritual healing and political empowerment by reaching out and uniting women who have had abortions:
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/articles/tellingothers.htm